Why CTE is silly

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you going to try and replicate what eeezbank did on you tube ?
I think they have seen that version . If you look like the Avatar then please
film us something
Petey

:thumbup::thumbup: if i was a chick and looked like her it would be costing u big $$$ to see me on a video lol

not sure yet wat i will do, im thinking about it :cool: do u have any ideas?
 
Dr. Dave,

The one thing I feel justified in emphasizing (even if some might think of it as a "technicality") is that subconscious alignments or judgments are not part of the CTE SYSTEM, since they aren't explicit in it. A system is composed of SYSTEMATIC ELEMENTS which are specified. Not specified? Not an element of the system.

Furthermore, if you separate and make distinct the two aspects: 1) alignments and pivots explicitly SPECIFIED by (any version of) CTE and 2) the subconscious alignments and judgments required, it will be plain then that the thing that actually MAKES THE SHOTS is the second aspect. And, of course, if that's true, then aspect #1 should be declared meaningless.

I don't see ANY argument that CTE advocates can make which, one way or another, doesn't reduce to their BEST claim being: set up for the nearest angle you know, and then subconsciously adjust from there. And that's practically how feel players play: setup the best you can, then hone in even better.

At any rate, I think CTE advocates must confront the SIMPLE and UNAMBIGUOUS assertion that:

CTE is not an AIMING SYSTEM, since it doesn't directly include the TARGET in its systematic shot setup methodology. If CTE leaves the issue of the TARGET to "subconscious judgment" then it's only fair and accurate to refer to the subconscious judgment aspect as THE AIMING METHOD BEING USED.
 
Last edited:
:thumbup::thumbup: if i was a chick and looked like her it would be costing u big $$$ to see me on a video lol

not sure yet wat i will do, im thinking about it :cool: do u have any ideas?

I pivot from the same side on every shot . (left to right) and
it is a half ball pivot . I aim every ball the same . No thick or
thin . Just 1 offset for every shot. I shoot 1 shot (all) over and over.
Not sure , But I think this method is the one they want to tape or
get exact description on. The dvd will be out in a few weeks.
I ordered mine today .
Thanks
Petey
 
what did u think of the video eeezbank put on youtube?

It opened a lot of eyes to a different way of aiming . In that aspect
it was good. You can make a large portion of shots using that method.
But that method has shortcomings . And is not complete. But hats off to
eeezbank for opening some minds via youtube
Petey
 
It opened a lot of eyes to a different way of aiming . In that aspect
it was good. You can make a large portion of shots using that method.
But that method has shortcomings . And is not complete. But hats off to
eeezbank for opening some minds via youtube
Petey

Thanks Petey.
 
Okay, after reading this statement I am left to ask where is the "magic" or what is the "secret sauce" of CTE if you are regularly getting spanked by people using Ghost Ball?

I'm starting to begin a slow gradual lean toward the side of CTE detractors if CTE users can't do any better than this. I will still remain neutral though, because I don't care what ANYONE on this thread says, if somebody is using a "system" that they believe works for them, then it WILL work for them, one way or another (mentally or physically).

It is beginning to sound as if no "system" for aiming is any better than any other. It all depends on the user of any "system" to be able to EXECUTE what he/she is trying to accomplish with whatever method of their choosing happens to be.

These are my opinions. You may have your own (I certainly hope so anyway :)). Keep in mind people, an opinion CANNOT be right nor wrong.

Maniac

Lean whichever way you want - whatever way that is makes no difference to those who lean the way they want to.

The point was that people can play great as long as what they use works for them. I have gotten spanked by people with the goofiest strokes imaginable, the kind of guys any APA 2 would be trying to give weight to who just happen to never miss with their Mickey Mouse strokes and Goofy stances.

I said CTE/Like Systems help ME to play the game at a level that makes it FUN for me.

I like playing better and making more shots and tougher shots consistently.

That doesn't mean that I am AUTOMATICALLY better than any other person just because I learned to aim a certain way.

It means that it's what I use and I am happy with it.

Rodney Morris does NOT use Ghost Ball. Shane Van Boeing does NOT use Ghost Ball. Which way would you "lean" if you knew what they use?

Another pro does use GB?

Another one uses Pro1?

Why are you leaning one way or the other based on anything you read here. Either you want to learn something or you don't. If you don't then just leave the CTE threads alone and talk about something else.

My ONLY purpose in this thread is to be a real world counterpoint to people like GMT who NEVER learned the system, don't know what it is and yet form conclusions that it's "silly" and invalid.

It's not to convince you or anyone else that CTE turns a person into a world beater. Only you can turn yourself into a world beater by applying yourself.

HOWEVER there are shortcuts to the learning curve. CTE might be one of them. You will never know until you try though right?
 
APART OF THE CTE SYSTEM.

I doubt VERY MUCH that a CTE methodology will ever state something like:

1) Line up the CB with the OB in such and such a manner.
2) Pivot the cue until it points is such a direction.
3) Then adjust all that by your INSTINCTS until you're lined up correctly to pocket the ball!

You're right because that's not how it works.

Wouldn't you love to know the complete steps?
 
Why are you leaning one way or the other based on anything you read here. Either you want to learn something or you don't.

A JB original statement! Why would you form impressions from other's arguments and experiences? Either your decision is already in your DNA or it isn't!

Funny.

If fact the best way to learn about something (before learning firsthand) is listening both to those FOR IT and to those AGAINST IT.
 
Wouldn't you love to know the complete steps?

Not really. If I can know that those steps don't involve an EXACT representation of the pocket position as part of the methodology, then I can know the steps are not useful for pocketing balls--and whatever the steps are, they're not part of an aiming system that could help me pocket balls.
 
Dr. Dave,

The one thing I feel justified in emphasizing (even if some might think of it as a "technicality") is that subconscious alignments or judgments are not part of the CTE SYSTEM, since they aren't explicit in it. A system is composed of SYSTEMATIC ELEMENTS which are specified. Not specified? Not an element of the system.

Furthermore, if you separate and make distinct the two aspects: 1) alignments and pivots explicitly SPECIFIED by (any version of) CTE and 2) the subconscious alignments and judgments required, it will be plain then that the thing that actually MAKES THE SHOTS is the second aspect. And, of course, if that's true, then aspect #1 should be declared meaningless.

I don't see ANY argument that CTE advocates can make which, one way or another, doesn't reduce to their BEST claim being: set up for the nearest angle you know, and then subconsciously adjust from there. And that's practically how feel players play: setup the best you can, then hone in even better.

At any rate, I think CTE advocates must confront the SIMPLE and UNAMBIGUOUS assertion that:

CTE is not an AIMING SYSTEM, since it doesn't directly include the TARGET in its systematic shot setup methodology. If CTE leaves the issue of the TARGET to "subconscious judgment" then it's only fair and accurate to refer to the subconscious judgment aspect as THE AIMING METHOD BEING USED.

How many "versions" of CTE are there? What is CTE? Would you tell us please what it is that you are criticizing?

I don't see anywhere where you have defined the subject?

The target by the way is the object ball. CTE brings you to the proper line to hit that target properly for the shot you are addressing.

Great way to aim. It works.
 
The dvd will be out in a few weeks.
I ordered mine today .
Thanks
Petey


Oh my! Stan is taking orders already? How do you do that? I imagine there are some here who would like to get on the list too, so that they can discuss whatever Joey writes with the appropriate information at first hand :-)

Lou Figueroa
 
Oh my! Stan is taking orders already? How do you do that? I imagine there are some here who would like to get on the list too, so that they can discuss whatever Joey writes with the appropriate information at first hand :-)

Lou Figueroa[/QUOT
Go to stans website and click on lessons . Mail a money order for 45$
to the address given. Then your on the list
Petey
 
How many "versions" of CTE are there? What is CTE? Would you tell us please what it is that you are criticizing?

I don't see anywhere where you have defined the subject?

The target by the way is the object ball. CTE brings you to the proper line to hit that target properly for the shot you are addressing.

Great way to aim. It works.

I'm actually not "criticizing" anything!

I'm describing aspects of the methodology of "various versions" of CTE that have been at least partially described (on Dr. Dave's site, in this thread, in Hal Houle's historic posts, and in the AZB thread in May).

None of those versions claim to use exact information about the relative location of the POCKET in their methodology, so none of them are pool aiming systems--if they pocket a ball it would only be a coincidence (usually the coincident aspect is the "feel" of the CTE user for how to hit the OB to send it to the pocket), because the pocket location isn't part of their methodology.


hehe, if the target were the object ball, then I could run 100,000 balls quite easily in 14.1 (in fact I'd need only one break to do it in)!
 
So, I can understand the "current" defense of CTE being "I don't like GetMeThere, therefore I'm not going to give him the correct info to learn CTE unless he makes a new screen name so we won't know its him". This is bogus, but I do understand it.

Well, "I" sincerely tried CTE, as it was listed on Dr Dave site. I really put in an effort, and was completely honest in my attempt at it. I got a few PM's saying I did it wrong, and the info on his site is wrong, but no one has shown me yet the "right" version of CTE.

I also said I'm not going to try again, unless the CTE users can agree on what version "I" should try, that they all agree will work. Hell, I'd even settle for 3 CTE users on this thread to all agree on a summary that I can take to the pool hall and try again.

So I challenge 3 of you CTE users, to agree on a set of instructions for me to pocket JUST ONE BALL! The ball in my test setup on THIS LINK, post 1198.


I will start from there. Just that one shot, tell me how to shoot it using CTE. Don't worry about other shots. JUST ONE SHOT! If it makes a difference, tell me how to shoot it using a stop shot stroke, and no side spin. If 3 of you agree on a method for this shot, I will try it in the next week and report my results, just like I did before.

Don't send me any pm's. 3 of you send each other pm's and agree on a set of instructions for me to make MY ONE SHOT. Then when you agree, post them here and I will follow them.
 
A JB original statement! Why would you form impressions from other's arguments and experiences? Either your decision is already in your DNA or it isn't!

Funny.

If fact the best way to learn about something (before learning firsthand) is listening both to those FOR IT and to those AGAINST IT.

Of course. I was responding to Maniac's idea that anything I say should STOP him from trying CTE IF he really desires to KNOW what it is and how to use it.

You are saying the same thing I said a few posts ago.

The difference between you and me is that I can relate real experiences with the systems and you can't. You are arguing from an intellectual position while I am arguing from a practical one.

In this instance actually playing the game trumps talking about it.

IF you were to come on here and show us say an email from Dave Segal where he gave you step by step instructions and THEN you dissected it at the points you found to be weak THEN you'd have something concrete.

As it is you are talking down to something you can't even describe.

So if Maniac doesn't get when I say that CTE has helped ME and that's the extent of my personal testimony then that's his own thing to deal with.

I am not sure if he was trying to put me down somewhat or what but let me rephrase the whole statement - I regularly get spanked by people and I have NO CLUE what method they are using to aim, could be GB - feel - CTE - shadows, lights, click-your-heels three times etc - the point is that they can play and are better than me. That has NO BEARING on what I am doing in my own game.

I know that FOR ME - using Ghost Ball/Feel I play WORSE than I do using CTE/Hal's systems.

So I am glad that I learned it.

And furthermore I am also kind of glad that I wasn't tainted by the condescending skepticism when I first met Hal. I had stayed out of all the "aiming system" threads in full confidence that I did not NEED to learn anything more about aiming and I certainly did not want to argue about it.

BUT luckily for me Hal thought enough of me to ask me to come down to meet him and me being the kind of person who rarely refuses a request to meet someone and try something I did. And what I learned changed the way I look at pool forever.

And that the same experience most of us have had with these systems. That's why we are passionate about them and defend them.

All I ever want to hear from you or Pat or Mike is - I learned it - I tried it - it's not for me.

But the "I learned it part" is the one part you seem to want to skip which then means the last two are for you still unknowns.

So if Maniac wants to lean towards never learning and trying CTE then that's on him or her. But to make the statement that they are doing so because of how I play AGAINST others is not the right way to think of it in my opinion. The right way to think of it is how do I feel about my own game and my level of happiness when I play after learning and using Hal's systems. That's where my personal testimonials add weight to the 'Cte is a worthwhile thing to try' concept.
 
Oh my! Stan is taking orders already? How do you do that? I imagine there are some here who would like to get on the list too, so that they can discuss whatever Joey writes with the appropriate information at first hand :-)

Lou Figueroa[/QUOT
Go to stans website and click on lessons . Mail a money order for 45$
to the address given. Then your on the list
Petey


http://justcueit.com/index.html (be prepared to hit your mute button :-)

What?! No PayPal or nuthin'? Gonna hurt sales....

Lou Figueroa
just trying to help
 
JB,

Hopefully...for the LAST time: your personal testimonials (or variations, like "IT WORKS!") without specifics are meaningless--UNLESS they are being made to somehow who KNOWS you very well, and highly respects your personal JUDGMENT on something like this.
 
JB,

Hopefully...for the LAST time: your personal testimonials (or variations, like "IT WORKS!") without specifics are meaningless--UNLESS they are being made to somehow who KNOWS you very well, and highly respects your personal JUDGMENT on something like this.


That would me.

Lou Figueroa
OK, OK
I kid, I kid
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top